Re: Olds scooter owners want action on their concerns
In comparison to other communities in which I have lived, including the Greater Toronto Area, the Town of Olds seems to have a major property crime problem. Incidents of theft, in particular, seem particularly high.
Examples: Over the past several years, there have been four significant thefts within 100 metres of my home here in Olds. I lost a trailer from my driveway to thieves. My across-the-street neighbour lost two vehicles, valued at over $100,000, to theft from his garage.
A neighbour down the alley lost tens of thousands of dollars in tools, that he uses to make a living, from a break-in to his garage.
And the post office boxes near my home were pry-barred open on in broad daylight and mail stolen.
But there is only so much money to spend on law enforcement. We have to be smart about how we use it. And therein lays a problem.
While property crimes seem to be rampant, the town apparently sees fit to use our law enforcement resources to harass two disabled folks for driving their brightly coloured electric enclosed mobility scooters on public roadways, and apparently threatening them with substantial penalty if they do not desist.
I have seen both vehicles on town of Olds streets. They are driven safely by their owners and pose, in my opinion, little danger to town residents.
I cannot say the same for bicycles and electric scooters that I see daily being operated on town sidewalks.
The town’s chief administrative officer was quoted in this newspaper as saying, “I think the story is no one wants to disadvantage people who already have mobility issues, it’s just there’s rules in place, and they’re not our rules, but we enforce them.”
But, there are also rules in place regarding where cycles, including bicycles, can be legally operated.
According to my reading of section 77 of the Use of Highway and Rules of Road Regulations, and the definitions of cycle, sidewalk, roadway, highway and bicycle contained in the Traffic Safety Act and/or the rules of road regulations, bicycles and e-scooters are to be operated close to the right edge or curb of the roadway. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.
The Alberta Specified Penalty Listing shows a fine of $81 applicable to operators of cycles who do not comply. (Ref. Page 128, Sec 77 -2.)
Apparently two by-law officers were deemed necessary to stop the handicapped lady operating her yellow, electric mini-car.
When was the last time you saw law-enforcement officers stopping someone for riding a bicycle on a sidewalk? I never have.
By virtue of their numbers, and the speeds and manner in which they are sometimes operated, bicycles on sidewalks pose a real threat for pedestrians, especially seniors.
But to my knowledge, they are not insured for damage they may cause. I believe that lack of insurance was one of the arguments cited for prohibiting two handicapped residents from operating their electric mini-cars.
Personally, I think the two handicapped folks should be left alone, and allowed to operate their electric enclosed mobility scooters. Resources used to police them would be better applied to the seemingly rampant theft problem in town.
But if the Town of Olds administration insists on enforcing somebody else’s rules, then let’s do it fairly and target the bigger threat of bicycles and e-scooters being operated on sidewalks.
And while we’re at it, let’s establish a mechanism for policing and penalizing our law enforcement officers when they violate traffic laws in non-emergency situations.
If we are being fair, and determined to enforce somebody else’s rules, why should they be allowed to breach the law when there is no good reason to do so?
Infractions by law enforcement officers I have seen in Olds include failure to signal turn, illegal U-turn, operating vehicle with licence plate obscured by snow and my favourite, a law enforcement vehicle occupying a handicapped parking spot at Tim Hortons.
Terry Storey,
Olds
